Subject: Re: Compiler timings on varous MVII NetBSDs etc.
To: Lord Isildur <email@example.com>
From: Brian Chase <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/22/2001 15:37:28
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Lord Isildur wrote:
> Is it time that we start seriously thinking about using a different
> compiler? ANSI C extensions for pcc2 would be my recommendation,
> assuming i had the time to do it.. i wouldn tbe able to touch such a
> project for numerous months though. The only impediment to using
> pcc/pcc2 generally is that it's a K&R compiler, and so much code
> written since will just barf. Otherwise it's a fine compiler, fast,
> simple, and generates very good code! (refer to the little 'dc'
> shootout ragge and i did between pcc2, ultrix's cc, and gcc a while
> back) It was in the net/2 distro, and thus should be unencumbered, and
> there wont be problems of licenses then for it.
Well.. even beyond the ANSI C requirements, a good amount of code depends
on GNU C specific behaviors. Sad, but true. It's probably not so common
that it'd be a reason to give up hope on using something else than gcc.
What about lcc? Would that be a viable choice?
We would have to add support for the generation of VAX object code. I'm
not sure if that would be more or less difficult than adding ANSI C
support to pcc2.
--- Brian Chase | email@example.com | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ -----
This counter is [6,177,399,753] times as pointless as a real one. -- K.